Daniel Kraus

Closed via #635.

Hey @p1729, Thx for your PR! We will look into this as soon as possible. ✌️

@nipafx I agree that adding simple setters is not so nice and also doesn't fit well with our overall API design. However, a `methodName` is probably not sufficient. In contrast...

Thank you both for getting back to us! ✌️

[System Rules](https://stefanbirkner.github.io/system-rules/#RestoreSystemProperties) has `RestoreSystemProperties`. We could do something similar (using [`TypeBasedParameterResolver`](https://junit.org/junit5/docs/5.8.2/api/org.junit.jupiter.api/org/junit/jupiter/api/extension/support/TypeBasedParameterResolver.html)): ```java @ResetSystemProperties void testSysProps(SystemProperties sysProps) { sysProps.set("key", "value"); // ... } @ResetEnvironmentVariables void testEnvVars(EnvironmentVariables envVars) { envVars.set("key", "value"); //...

> Is the `SystemProperties` parameter really needed? Wouldn't it be easier and cover more cases, e.g. when the tested code modifies system properties, to cover regular `System.setProperty` usage? If we...

@Bukama did the rebase and LGTM. As the original author, could you please have another look and if everything's fine, proceed with the merge into `lab/2.0`?

Hi @virtual-machinist, thx for reaching out – we will look into this.

Related: I once leveraged `@ParameterizedTest` for cross-browser testing with Selenium: https://gist.github.com/beatngu13/8d5f60355d7fbef143198f020b1efca3 Haven't looked into Playwright so far, but maybe something similar can be done here.

>One thing to note is that we should keep the dependency on Playwright optional (aka _provided_), so we don't drag it in ourselves if users don't already use it. Rather...